mcp-knowledge

ip_employee_invention_tracker

Read-onlyIdempotent

For CHROs: tracks employee patent filings and flags unassigned inventions. Input employee name or ID to retrieve their patent applications from USPTO and WIPO databases. Returns list of inventions with assignment status, filing dates, and potential ownership gaps. Useful for IP audits, inventor onboarding, and compliance checks. Keywords: patents, IP ownership, employee inventions, USPTO, WIPO.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`async`	No	If true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
`endDate`	No	Filter patents filed before this date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`startDate`	No	Filter patents filed after this date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`employeeId`	No	Internal employee ID (optional if name provided)
`companyName`	Yes	Exact legal name of company for assignment check
`employeeName`	Yes	Full name of employee to track (e.g., 'John Doe')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`patents`	Yes
`sources`	No
`warnings`	Yes
`employeeId`	No
`companyName`	Yes
`employeeName`	Yes
`totalPatents`	Yes
`unassignedPatents`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) are consistent with the description which states it retrieves patent applications from external databases (USPTO, WIPO) and returns a list of inventions. No contradictions. Description adds details about output fields (assignment status, filing dates, ownership gaps) beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three front-loaded sentences: first states audience and purpose, second describes inputs, third describes outputs. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool has 6 parameters with full schema descriptions, an output schema (not shown but indicated), and annotations providing safety hints. Description covers purpose, inputs, outputs, and keywords, making it complete for a retrieval tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning, such as example 'John Doe' for employeeName and context about required parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters well.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool tracks employee patent filings and flags unassigned inventions, with specific verb 'tracks' and resource 'patent filings' and 'patent applications from USPTO and WIPO databases'. It distinguishes from sibling IP tools like patent_landscape or patent_ownership_audit by focusing on employee inventions and assignment status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description provides context 'Useful for IP audits, inventor onboarding, and compliance checks' and targets CHROs, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mcp-knowledge tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in competitive intelligence, ESG, and risk assessment. For example, there are multiple tools for competitor analysis (competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, competitor_moves, etc.) with unclear boundaries. Agents would struggle to select the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of English and French, and follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case (e.g., abm_architect, action_plan_esg), while others are verb-focused (e.g., content_catalog, fx_rate). The lack of a uniform naming convention makes it hard for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 271 tools, the server is excessively large. Even for a broad knowledge domain, this number of tools makes discovery and selection inefficient. Typical coherent servers have 3-15 tools; this has an order of magnitude more, indicating poor scoping.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains (compliance, finance, marketing, HR, etc.), but the coverage is uneven due to redundancy. Key areas have multiple overlapping tools, while some sub-domains may still have gaps. Overall, the surface is broad but not well-curated.

ip_employee_invention_tracker

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources